Steve is correct. The test rescoring of logs will use coordinates from the
CTY file for DX locations, and coordinates for the approximate center of
State/Province for W/VE locations. This has the advantage of not requiring
modification of the exchange (the rescoring wouldn't be feasible otherwise.)
The scoring formula used for the tests will include mults, same as the
present formula. Not sure where the idea that mults would be dropped came
from, but it wasn't the CAC.
At the end of the tasking, CAC members will decide if distance-based scoring
should apply to W/VE, DX, both or none.
73, Dick WC1M
NE CAC Rep, Chair
From: Steve London [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents
There seems to be some confusion about changing to distance-based scoring.
There is no need to change the ARRL DX contest exchange to implement
distance-based scoring. The CTY.DAT files already have latitude/longitude
every country. It would be a simple matter to add latitude/longitude for the
center of every state/province to that file. Sure, it won't be perfect for
states, provinces and countries, but it's a lot simpler than exchanging
6-character grid squares !
There is also the presumption that for ARRL DX, distance-based scoring would
applied equally for W/VE and DX competitors. Why not have distance-based
only for W/VE participants, while leaving the scoring system unchanged for
On 06/27/2011 05:54 AM, Richard DiDonna NN3W wrote:
> I think grid squares is a bad idea for a multi-band DX contest. Many hams
> do not even know what their grid square is and would not have the least
> as to how to find it. Grid square contests like the SP and VHF contests
> them because everyone in the test is there to to work the test - not the
> same case with ARRL DX where casual ops are all over the band.
> Can you imagine having to walk a casual UA3 or DO2 station through the
> process of having them figure out what their grid is? They will work one
> station and then turn the radio off.
> Hell, for stateside operators, remember what one has to do to walk one
> through a SS exchange - and then remember that is with information that
> operator knows (except for possibly their section).....
> 73 Rich NN3W
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David J. Sourdis - HK1A"<firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: "CQ contest"<email@example.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 5:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents
>> Using the locators as an exchange might be too much for some but, OTOH,
>> would make exchange meaningful. The locator in the header as information
>> for the contest robot is a good idea, in my opinionTo encourage the use
>> ALL of the low bands, more points per QSO should be assigned. 160 m with
>> the higher value, 80 m less and so on, and not just double points for
>> 160-80-40 and less for the rest, because this kind of division makes that
>> contesters use 40 m, some 80 m when 40 m gives them no more and then
>> dismiss 160.
>>> Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:29:56 +0000
>>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> To: email@example.com
>>> CC: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Level Playing Field - my 2 cents
>>> Milt, N5IA agreed with Stan's (K5GO) comment below.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> Something is not quite right when a part time effort in a DX contest
>>>> can make top ten
>>> and knock out a full time effort by as good an> operator from a better
>>> station.> >
>>> I had a private exchange with Stan and here is an excerpt. For me, the
>>> last sentence says
>>> it all.
>>> A main problem with "points for distance" approach is there is currently
>>> nothing in place to allow for
>>> that. Exchanging grid squares seems logical& everybody would quickly
>>> learn their own grid square, but
>>> even that is probably not precise enough. If we went to 6 digit grids,
>>> then I think we'd have something...
>>> Not only would we have a point system more relevant in terms of being a
>>> DX contest, but the exchanges
>>> would be meaningful. But is there a downside to that? Maybe. Some say
>>> that the reason the
>>> CQWW is so popular (with WPX right behind) is because there "isn't" an
>>> exchange and everybody
>>> can get on and not be challenged because of an unknown exchange.
>>> A possible easier solution would be to require your 6 digit maidenhead
>>> grid as part of the HEADER
>>> for each log entry. Then folks would still have an "easy" exchange and
>>> could leisurely look up their
>>> grid post-contest. The downside, of course, is that nobody would know
>>> their actual score until the logs
>>> were officially adjudicated.
>>> So nothing is easy.
>>> de Doug KR2Q
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list